____________________________________________________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 8:20-cv-01983-JLS-KES Date: March 23, 2021 Title: Ken Wigchert v. SPRI Products, Inc. et al Present: Honorable JOSEPHINE L. STATON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Melissa Kunig N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF: ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANT:

Not Present Not Present

PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER (1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND (Doc. 10) AND (2) DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS (Doc. 7)

On October 14, 2020, Defendant Target Corporation (“Target”) removed this state-law action from Orange County Superior Court, invoking this Court’s diversity jurisdiction. (Notice of Removal (“NOR”), Doc. 1.) On November 13, 2020, Plaintiff brought the present Motion to Remand. (Mot., Doc. 10.) Target failed to file an opposition. Pursuant to Local Rule 7-12, the Court deems Target’s failure to timely oppose as consent to the granting of the motion. See C.D. Cal. R. 7-12. Moreover, as Plaintiff correctly notes, Target’s Notice of Removal acknowledges that two other Defendants— SPRI Products, Inc. and Gaiam, Inc.—were served with the state court complaint prior to removal, (see NOR ¶¶ 3(d)-(f)), but nowhere represents the consent or joinder of all served Defendants as is required for removal to be effective. See

(b)(2)(A); see Parrino v. FHP, Inc.,

, 703 (9th Cir. 1998) (“All defendants must join a notice of removal.”). Nor does the Notice of Removal explain those Defendants’ absence. Prize Frize, Inc. v. Matrix (U.S.) Inc.,

(9th Cir. 1999), superseded on other grounds, (“[T]he removing party has the burden under section 1446(a) to explain affirmatively the absence of any co-defendants in the notice for removal.”). ____________________________________________________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 8:20-cv-01983-JLS-KES Date: March 23, 2021 Title: Ken Wigchert v. SPRI Products, Inc. et al Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion1 and REMANDS the case to Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 30-02020-01153512-CU-PL-CJC. Target’s Motion to Dismiss is DENIED AS MOOT. (Doc. 7.) Initials of Deputy Clerk: mku

1 The Court finds this matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; C.D. Cal. R. 7-15. Accordingly, the hearing set for April 2, 2021, at 10:30 a.m., is VACATED.